1. Field of the Invention
The present invention generally relates to bottles with pressurized carbonated water-based liquid contents, such as champagne and sparkling wines, having stoppers, and, more particularly, to a plastic one-piece cork unit which is anchored to the neck of a bottle by at least one pair of tethers.
2. Description of the Prior Art
It long has been recognized that bottles with pressurized, carbonated contents present a hazard. When such a bottle is opened, the stopper often will fly off so forcefully as to be capable of injuring a person nearby. Facial and eye injuries have been known to occur when a stopper is shot out of the bottle.
A number of different closure arrangements for bottles with pressurized, carbonated water-based liquid contents have been mentioned in the prior art.
Thus, U.S. Pat. No. 3,986,627 discloses a stoppering system in which a cap is attached to a securing ring on a bottle neck by a single protruding flexible member. However, the cap is not inserted into the neck of the bottle.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,054,221 discloses a device in which a cap is attached to a ring on a bottle by a single strap portion. In this patent, too, the stoppering device is not inserted into the neck of the bottle and, therefore, cannot shoot out of a bottle, even accidentally.
U.S. Pat. No. 773,345 discloses a multi-part device in which a stopper is attached to a loop around bottle neck by a single chain or wire.
U.S. Pat. No. 1,265,263 discloses a multi-part device in which a stopper is secured to a bottle by a single rope or wire.
British Pat. No. 15267 discloses a multi-part device in which a stopper is secured to a bottle by a single chain.
West German Pat. No. 2,200,857 discloses a multi-part device in which a stopper is secured to bottle neck by a separately formed single tether.
Swiss Pat. No. 338,108 discloses a bottle stoppering system in which a cap is secured to a bottle by a single tether. This stoppering system utilizes a capping, and not a stoppering, device. The tether extends horizontally outward of the outer surface of the bottle. The capping device is of a one-piece plastic construction.
Although all of foregoing closure arrangements appear to be satisfactory for their intended purposes, they have drawbacks for use in stoppering bottles with pressurized, carbonated, water-based liquid contents. Due to the existence of outwardly extending tethers on some of the prior art arrangements, the application of restraining wiring on the bottles after stoppering is difficult. For the same reason, it is difficult to pack large numbers of stoppered bottles.
In prior art arrangements that have multi-part closure portions, problems arise in assembly and inventory which add to the total cost of stoppering the bottles.
In application Ser. No. 223,894, an improved stoppering arrangement is disclosed in which a plastic stopper is connected by a single tether to a ring, the cork, the tether and the ring being molded in one piece as a unit, the ring being forced over an upper flange on the neck of a bottle near the mouth and the ring being capable of being manually forced over a second lower flange. The single tether is in a folded state, as molded, and the folded tether is so physically disposed at this time of molding that its radial position with respect to the axis of symmetry of the stopper does not extend beyond the ring prior to and after insertion of the stopper in the bottle neck. In the as-molded state of the cork, tether and ring, the single folded tether is connected to the head of the stopper and to the ring by frangible bridges so as to retain the tether in a folded state and the unit in a compact condition prior to insertion of the stopper into the bottle neck. However, these bridges break upon insertion of the stopper into the neck of the bottle and forcing of the ring over the flange on the neck of the bottle so that when the stopper is loosened prior to its extraction from the neck of the bottle, it is not free to be ejected forcefully and unrestrainedly but rather will be checked in its flight, if any, from the bottle by the tether.
An objection has been raised to the use of a single tether which is that the stopper tends be pulled back to a position where it interferes with the flow of liquid from the mouth of the bottle unless the withdrawn stopper is grasped by the user and held out of the path of the issuing stream. It was proposed to remedy this in the second application by using either a pair of tethers to connect a single point on the ring to a single point on the stopper or by using a pair of tethers to connect each of two different points on the ring to each of two different points on the head of the cork. But these, too, caused objections.
The first modification caused the same drawback as the single tether and the second modification raised the objection that the stopper tended to act as an intermittent check on the free flow of liquid from the bottle. In the earlier application Ser. No. 223,894, only the single tether form of application Ser. No. 384,758 was disclosed, with which the first above drawback was present.
There was another problem with the tethers shown in the aforesaid applications, particularly with the single tethers shown in the Ser. No. 223,894. The problem sometimes arose that the tether was not sufficiently strong to restrain the stopper, i.e. keep it from flying freely under the force engendered by the pressure of the gas in the head space of the bottle. Conventionally carbonated beverages are pressurized to maintain a certain range of pressures at ordinary room temperature, that is 20.degree. C. Indeed, champagne usually is served chilled and, very frequently, sparkling wines are served chilled so that the pressure in the head space of the bottle is not so great that the stopper cannot be restrained by a single tether. Nevertheless, some consumers are not accustomed to drinking a champagne or sparkling wine and do not chill the beverage before serving so that such bottles may be opened, upon occasion, at room temperatures or even higher. If the tether had acquired a defect in the molding, the stopper might fly free and injure the person opening the bottle or a person nearby. Although this was a rather rare occurrence, the liability could be substantial and it was not an event which a bottler could disregard. A bottler wants to be assured that the stopper would not be freely propelled from the bottle under any circumstances.
Also there is the problem that champagne and sparkling wines sometimes will be stored in places which are not refrigerated and where temperatures may be quite high so that even if the stopper were not loosened, it might work its way partially out of the neck fo the bottle and, if the single tether were not strong enough to restrain it, it would pop out and might strike someone passing by.
Too, the wire cage or metal bail which was employed to guard against such accidental dislodgment of the stopper might have been improperly applied and since, by Murphy's Law, untoward events usually happened concurrently, the wire cage or bail might fail on the same bottle as that on which a defective tether was present.
Attempts were made to solve this problem by employing a stronger material for the tether and by increasing the cross section of the tether, but these did not prove successful because the tether became too stiff, so stiff that it would not straighten out sufficiently when the stopper had to be withdrawn to permit liquid to be poured from the bottle and the stopper then became difficult to handle.
In the later patent application, Ser. No. 384,758, two alternatives were proposed. One of these, shown in FIG. 10, was the use of four tethers arranged in two sets, each set being independent of the other and the tethers of each set connecting a single point on the head of the stopper to a single point on the ring. The other of these was shown in FIG. 11, wherein there was a single set of tethers both ends of which were connected to a single point on the stopper and to a single point on the ring. However, neither of these proved to be entirely satisfactory, although they somewhat alleviated the problem. Both of these proposals retained the stopper in position against head space pressures which were considerably elevated by higher than average temperatures but were unable automatically to enable the stopper to assume a position free of an outpouring stream when the bottle was opened.